february so far. on the positive side, valentine's day will be great. >> beautiful day. >> thank you. that's our report for this morning. thank you for trusting ktvu, channel 2 news. >> our next newscast is at 5:00. have a wonderful sunday. thank you for joining us.

. >> chris: i'm chris wallace. what is the state of our union? foreign and domestic? ♪ >> chris: as president obama prepares to address the nation, tuesday, he faces a buzz saw of issues: automatic spending cuts. gun control, immigration reform, and the resurgent al qaeda. we'll talk about all of this, with two of washington's heavy hitters. house democratic leader nancy pelosi. and, senator john mccain. pelosi and mccain, only on fox news sunday. then, senators grill the president's nominee for cia director over the targeted killing of terror suspects. we'll ask our sunday panel about new demands to lift the veil on drone strikes. and, our power player of the week can tell you almost everything the president does. and, how often he does it.

all, right now on fox news sunday. ♪ >> chris: and, hello again, from fox news in washington. when president obama delivers his state of the union speech tuesday, one big issue will be sequestration. $85 billion in automatic spending cuts, due to kick in, march 1st. the white house now warns this will mean damaging layoffs of teachers, law enforcement and food safety inspectors. and, the pentagon will be hit, too. they propose a mix of spending cuts and, yes, more taxes, through limiting deductions, for the wealthy. i sat down late friday with house democratic leader nancy pelosi and asked her about the fast-approaching deadline. congressman pelosi, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> welcome to the capitol. >> chris: the white house says, sequestration will have a severe effect on many americans. house republicans agree. but they say the answer is to find other spending cuts, not

tax hikes. >> well, i think that the sequestration is a bad idea, all around. it is something that is out of the question. the fact is, we have had plenty of spending cuts, $1.6 trillion in the budget control act. what we need is growth, growth with jobs and if you have spending cuts, education of our children, other investments, where you are hindering growth, you are no going to reduce the deficit. so, what we do need is more revenue, and more cuts, but i would like to see that a big, balanced, bold proposal. and short of that, we must do something to avoid the sequester. >> chris: here's what house speaker boehner said this week: >> at some point washington has to deal with its spending problem. i watched them kick the can down though road for 22 years i have been here and i have had enough

of it. >> chris: congresswoman, let's look at this numbers. are you really saying in you a government that spends $3.5 trillion a year, that increased federal discretionary spending by 14%, over the last four years, you can't find 8 8 -- $85 billion to cut, to avoid sequester. >> we have cut agriculture subsidy, tense of billions of dollars in cuts there and that should be balanced with eliminating subsidy for big oil. why should we do -- why should we lower pel grants instead of eliminating the subsidies for big oil. >> chris: why not just cut spending, $85 billion in a $3.5 trillion government. >> let's back up from -- with all due respect to the speaker, what he said is not the gospel truth. the fact is, that a lot of the spending increases came during the bush administration. two unpaid for wars we got ourselves engaged in.

a prescription drug plan that added enormous amounts to our spending and the tax cuts at that did not -- >> $5 trillion, since this president came in. >> part of that is from the -- what we had to do to avoid going over the cliff of the recession. depression. yes, we had the recovery act which saves or created 3.5 million jobs, you know the record of job growth in the private sector has been consistent for many record number of months. so, again, we have to make a judgment about what -- how do we get growth with jobs, that is where the revenue comes from. you don't get it by cutting down your education and cutting back on investments in science and national institutes of health, food safety, you name it. so, it isn't as much you a spending problem as a priorities

-- and that is what the budget is, setting priorities. >> chris: but you talk about growth. even christina romer, the former head of the council of economic advisors for the president says you increase tax, that also hurts growth. >> well, it is about timing. it is about timing. and it is about timing as to when make cuts, as well. >> chris: the fiscal cliff, you raised taxes $650 billion, right away. >> yeah and that was a very good thing to do. on people making over -- the high end in our population. so, here's the thing, though: we are here to have a budget that has revenue coming in, that has investments made, into the future. we also want to make decisions in those two areas where growth with jobs are created, because, more jobs, more revenue, coming in. nothing brings more money to the treasury of the united states, than investment in education, of

the american people. we need to recognize that. which cuts really help us and which cuts really hurt our future. and, cuts in education, scientific research and the rest are harmful and they are what are accepted by the sequestration. it is almost wrong to say it is a spending problem, we have a deficit problem, we have low interest on the national debt and it is a good time for us to act to lower the deficit. we think the deficit and the national debt, we think they must be reduced and are sick and tired of paying interest on the national debt and the 15% is a large percentage of the budget, the interest on the national debt. it is lower now because of the lower interest rates. >> chris: again, all i would say is we have a $3.5 trillion budget and they are talking about $85 billion in cuts. let's go to the taxes, though -- >> we, we agreed to $1.6

trillion in spending, discretionary, domestic spending... >> chris: the sequestration is just spending cuts. >> secondly, we have gone to medicare and had savings of over a trillion dollars, in medicare already. and when i say we, i mean, the democrats and what the republicans are proposing is to make a voucher of medicare, no longer making it a guarantee. but to the things in this discussion, that i think american people understand what it means in their daily lives. >> chris: let's talk about taxes, you keep talking about raising taxes and you talk about making the wealthy -- let me ask the question first, let me ask the question: you keep talking about making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. >> right. >> chris: the top 1%, pay 37% of all federal income taxes. the top 5%, pay 59% of all federal taxes. if you took the total income of

everyone making more than a million dollars a year, taxed it all, at 100%, that is only $726 billion. which is less than the projected deficit for the year. i mean, the bottom line, congresswoman, is, you cannot raise taxes enough to solve the deficit problem. >> nobody is saying that. we are saying it has to be balanced. now on the subject of the high end we are not talking about raising rates. we did that. reeliminated the high end tax cuts of the bush years which only increased the deficit, and didn't create jobs. we kept the low income tax cuts and the -- what we have in our proposal, that comes from our top democrat on the budget committee is to say we'll eliminate subsidy and it gives us a lot of money, eliminating the subsidy for big oil. we also have the buffett rule which says all of the high income people will pay a minimum of -- -- >> raising tax on the wealthy.

>> no, you are saying they should pay their fair share, which is 30%, which is lower than 39.6, which is the rate -- the bracket they are in. >> chris: but you say, if they have a deduction... >> take advantage of so many loopholes. >> chris: deductions on the books. the point is -- >> 30%. >> chris: the point is, that you can't raise enough money -- i mean, the main driver of thet0%r budget, our spending is entitlements and when medicare started life expectancy was 70 and now it is 79. don't you have to raise the eligibility age and slow the growth of benefits, as a way to deal with the deficit? >> i'm glad you brought up medicare. don't you think -- to address your question, don't you think you ought to see it at the age where it does save money, those people will not evaporate from the face of the earth.

they'll have medical need and have to be attended to and the earlier intervention for it, the less the cost will be and the better the quality of life. i do think we should subject every federal dollar that is spent under the harshest scrutiny and i think the challenge with medicare is not medicare, the challenge is rising medical health care costs in general. and, prescription drugs and the rest of that, that driver those costs, that is what we have to address, which we did in the affordable care act and we are about to see some reports from the institute of medicine, about how we reduce the cost of health care, in medicare, because we are paying for quality, not quantity of procedures. but, quality of performance. and, i think that there is money to be saved there. and i don't think it has to come out of benefits, or beneficiaries, and i don't think you have to raise the age. >> chris: gun control will be a big part of the president's

agenda in the state of the union address tuesday night but i want to ask you about another part of the effort to stop these horrible, repeated acts of mass violence. as part of your plan, you call for more scientific research on the connection between popular culture and violence. we don't need another study, respectfully. i mean, we know that these video games, where people have their heads splattered and the movies and the tv shows, why don't you go to your friend in hollywood and challenge them? shame them... and say knock it off? >> well, i do think whatever we do, when you talk about evidenc evidence-based we have it throughout our proposal. in other words, we don't want to just anecdotally laying bills -- >> anyway -- you have a lot of friends in hollywood. why don't you go to them and publicly say i think challenge you to stop the video games? >> i do think -- i understand what you are saying, i'm a

mother, i'm a grandmother, but, they, not hollywood but the evidence says that, in japan, for example, they have the most violent games and the lowest death, mortality from guns. i don't know what the explanation is for that except they may have good gun laws but you took one piece of it and we are talking about -- we are talking about no further sales of assault weapons. what is the justification for an assault weapon? you know, no further sales of those, no further sales of the increased capacity, 30 rounds in a gun, we are talking about background checks which is very popular, even among gun owners, and, hunters. we avow the first amendment and stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves. in their homes and their jobs, whatever, and that they -- and the workplace and that they, for

recreation and hunting and the rest. but we are in the questioning -- >> the question is -- i think a lot of people say, here it is, liberals like nancy pelosi want to go after gun owners. but, when it comes to mental health laws, when it comes to their liberal friend in hollywood, they don't want to make them ante up. >> mental health laws, i have to tell you, when i was speaker and we couldn't get a hearing on it before that we passed the mental health parity act and, in the affordable care act we took it to the next step and in another year you -- we'll have many more services available, because of mental health parity. we certainly have to do more. and, i salute the -- applaud all of those who say we have to do more in mental health but we have to do it, i think, we have to do it all and that is why we said -- we included in there we have to look at what these games are. i don't think we should do anything anecdotally. we have a saying here, t... the

anecdote is not evidence and we have to be comprehensive. >> chris: finally, president obama predicted this week that you will once again be speaker. his words, pretty soon. what do you think of the chances of you regaining the majority in the house and you, once again being speaker pelosi after the 2014 midterms? >> well, it is nice he said that but the fact is, what is important, the democrats regain the majority in the house, between now and then we have a lot of work to do. we want to pass comprehensive immigration reform and, pass "keep our kid safe" and initiatives that relate to gun violence, prevention, we want to create jobs and have initiatives for growth with jobs, we want to make our country more democratic in terms of how elections are conducted. reducing the role of money,

increasing the level of stability so young people and women participate. it is confidence in our children and our economy and confidence as to who we are as a people and so we have plenty to do, before then. but the president said was complimentary but as far as i'm concerned it is about the issues and the issues are better served by a democratic majority in my view and that is what i'm hoping we'll achieve in 2014. as i say, we have a lot of work to do, hopefully in a bipartisan way, between now and then. and i think the issues i named, we could get bipartisan cooperation. >> congresswoman pelosi, thank you. >> lovely to see you. >> chris: always a pleasure to talk to you. >> my pleasure, thank you. >> chris: up next, senator john mccain gives us his take on spending cuts, drone strikes and more. ♪ [ male announcer ] how can power consumption in china,

impact wool exports from new zealand, textile production in spain, and the use of medical technology in the u.s.? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing. i work for 47 different companies.

well, technically i work for one. that company, the united states postal service®, works for thousands of home businesses. because at usps.com®, you can pay, print and have your packages picked up for free. i can even drop off free boxes. i wear a lot of hats. well, technically i wear one. the u.s. postal service®, no business too small. no they don't. hey son. have fun tonight. ♪ ♪ back against the wall ♪ ain't nothin to me ♪ ain't nothin to me [ crowd murmurs ] hey! ♪ [ howls ] ♪

>> chris: and we're back now with senator john mccain. senator, welcome. >> thank you, chris. >> chris: you just heard nancy pelosi talk about these automatic spending cuts, that kick in on march 1st. she wants a mix of cuts and, yes, more tax. which i know you don't like. on the other hand, if you go to the automatic cuts, sequestration, you get a 13% cut over the rest of the year. in the pentagon. which i know you also don't like. if it comes down to that, higher

taxes, or sequestration, the pentagon cuts, where do you go? where do you come down? >> well, obviously, i don't want to see tax increased. but what i would like to see is the president call the leaders over to the white house and say, look, we have to solve the problem. the sequestration, secretary panetta, one of the most widely respected men, person in washington, d.c. and he has been saying it will devastate our national security. we are -- republicans and democrats are responsible for the new cliff and i'll take responsibility for it for the republicans but we have got to avoid it. we have to stop it. >> chris: the president says -- the price of that is more taxes. >> the president is the same person who during the campaign said it will not happen. remember that? he dismissed it and a lot of us, lindsey graham and kelly ayotte traveled around the country warning about what will happen as a result of sequestration.

and the world is very dangerous -- i'm sorry i'm emotional about this but this men and women serving in the military deserve better than what we are giving them. they don't know what they'll be doing tomorrow. we deplayed the deployment of an aircraft carrier. the cuts are coming across the board. the consequences are severe and it requires bipartisanship and, will i look at revenue closers, maybe so but we have raised tax. why do we have to raise tax again? >> chris: in the state of the union speech, aide say the president is going to call for new investment/spending on education, and energy and infrastructure and manufacturing to try to boost the economy and to boost the middle class. will you go along with that? >> as long as we pay for it. we have seen this movie before. we saw it with the so-called stimulus package, back in the beginning of the administration.

and, we saw the longest, most staant economy in history and now a debt and deficit, that is $51,000 for every man, woman and child in america. the size of the government has grown exponentially, we are, for example on sequestration, we have a proposal for every three federal retiree, we hire only one and that would take care of the sequestration problem and there are simple answer to many of these problems that we can address the problem without raising people's tax. first we ought to sit down across the table, the president should with us and work it out. all he does is go out and make speeches. >> chris: the president's nominee for cia director, john brennan, testified in his confirmation hearing, this week, faced tough questioning, especially about the administration's targeted killing program for terror suspects, even american citizens. what do you think of this idea which is gaining currency on capitol hill of what is called a

drone court? where before the president puts a targeted terrorist and, especially an american citizen, on a "kill list" they have to get approval from a judge? >> i don't agree with it because i think it is an encroachment on the powers of the president of the united states but what we need to do is take the whole program out of the hand of the central intelligence agency and put it into the department of defense. where you have adequate oversight and committee oversights and all the things that are built in, as oversight of the department of defense. since when is the intelligence agency supposed to be an air force of drones that goes around killing people? i believe it is a job for the department of defense. >> chris: but no drone court? >> no. i don't -- there has to be a legitimate oversight by the congress and as open a process as possible, and it it's a strange conundrum, in the u.s., they have to be read or their

miranda rights. >> chris: you have been making more news, as a questioner than i have. you got a surprising admission from both cia -- rather, defense secretary panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs, general martin dempsey who revealed along with secretary of state clinton and -- >> director of national intelligence, clapper. >> chris: right. added to it, they all, last summer, last fall, support the idea of arming the rebels in syria, but, the president overruled his entire national security team. what do you make of that and from what we hear from his aide, his continued refusal to intervene in the civil war in syria? >> i think, they are writing one of the more shameful chapter in american history, 60,000 people have been massacred. i have been to the refugee camps and met the people, the atrocious treatment going on. it is disgraceful and, by the way, there is a national security component, it would be the greatest blow to iran, in

the last 25 years, if bashar al-assad fell, not to mention hezbollah. so, it is incomprehensible and the president of the united states, to say, because people are dying in the congo is a reason not to act in syria? it shows to me a lack of experience and knowledge which is very dangerous to america's national security interests and, again, it is shameful that we have let over 60,000 people be massacred and we won't even give them arms, while the iranians, the revolutionary guard on the ground and russian continue to supply weapons. >> chris: then there is the president's nominee, former senator chuck hagel, at his confirmation hearing, it is fair to say you gave him a real going-over about his opposition to the iraq troop surge in 2007. let's look at that: >> we are correct or incorrect? yes or no? >> my reference to the -- >> answer the question, senator

hagel. the question is: were you right or wrong? >> chris: i have a question for you, how will you vote on the hagel nomination? >> we still have more information, but, again, that was not be a academic discussion i was having with him. we were losing the war in 2006. and, when the president came around, bush, who i had been very critical of, sent david petraeus and the surge, we succeeded in iraq and now, because of the obama administration's action afterwards we are losing, very badly unraveling, but the fact is the we hadn't done that more american lives would have been lost unnecessarily. so, for then senator hagel to say, well, he'll let history be the judge, he was there and involved. and i'm sure he is wrong and knows he's wrong on the base of the fact of what happened. >> chris: so i have to press it again. you saw the hearing and know his record. are you going to support him for defense secretary? >> i will see the rest of the answers to his question, but,

certainly, i have very grave concerns. >> chris: grave concerns? fair to say you are leaning against voting for him. >> i think that would be fair. >> chris: how do you feel about other republican senators who are suggesting some procedural move to block the nomination? >> i think we need all the information from senator hagel, but the fact is we have never filibustered a cabinet appointee and i do not believe we should filibuster his nomination. >> chris: or a hold or one of those other... >> i think we need more information, on question that he has not answered. >> chris: but... >> and i hope those question get answered but, we have never filibustered a presidential cabinet appointee and i don't think we should start here. they have consequence, unfortunately. >> chris: you know. finally, immigration, you are part of a bipartisan group of senators, 8, 4 republicans, 4 democrats, who have come up not with legislation but an outline

for a plan for immigration reform and the president want to put the 11 million illegals who are here now on the path to citizenship, and secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano said this week that she believes the border is, her word, the border is secure. you, on the other hand, your group are talking about linking the path to citizenship to a number of measures to further enforce the border. question: will you insist in any immigration package on border enforcement first? >> yes. i will and that is basically the agreement. there are 11 million people living in the shadows and i believe they deserve to come out of the shadows, the children brought here when they were children deserve that kind of consideration as well. but we do need to have a secure border. we can do it with surveillance capabilities. and other capabilities. and, i believe we can achieve that. but that is our commitment and i owe it to people who live in the southern part of my state where drug smugglers are coming across

their property every, single night. >> chris: let me ask you about the flip side of that, though. under your plan, though they wouldn't get the path to citizenship until you got the border enforcement certification, they would almost immediately gate what is called "probationary legal status" which means they can continue to live in this country legally. some of your critics on the right are saying that is amnesty. >> well, i don't think it is amnesty to start with. second of all, what do you want to do with them? that is the question in response and third of all, it is a tough path to citizenship, you have to pay back tax and learn english and have to have a clear record and get to the back of the line behind to the people who have come here legally or waiting legally. so, i just reject that. but i understand how emotional this issue is, with many of my friend on both left and right. but i think we are making progress, and, we have not come to final agreement on many of the details, some of which you just asked me about. >> chris: senator, thank you and

thanks for coming in here and somehow you always find yourself at the center of the action. >> thank you, my friend. >> chris: up next, the president's big state of the union speech. we'll ask our panel about mr. obama's ambitious second-term agenda and whether congress will pass it. ♪ these days. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 but there is one source with a wealth of etf knowledge tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 all in one place. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 introducing schwab etf onesource™. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 it's one source with the most commission-free etfs. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 one source with etfs from leading providers tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and extensive coverage of major asset classes... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 all brought to you by one firm tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with comprehensive education, tools and personal guidance tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 to help you find etfs that may be right for you. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 schwab etf onesource-- tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 for the most tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 commission-free etfs, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 you only need one source and one place. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 start trading commission-free with schwab etf onesource. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call, click or visit today. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 investors should carefully consider

tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 information contained in the prospectus, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 including investment objectives, risks, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 charges, and expenses. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 you can request a prospectus by calling schwab tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 at 800-435-4000. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 please read the prospectus carefully before investing.

you in heaven. wrapped in luxury. you in action. you in motion. you in luck. play in style. talking stick resort, scottsdale. book now to enjoy cactus league spring training rates.

♪ >> the current republican plan puts the burden of avoiding those cuts mainly on and middle class families. they would rather ask more from vast majority of americans and put our recovery at risk than close even a single tax loophole

that benefits the wealthy. >> chris: president obama, previewing his state of t the union address as he criticized the republican alternative to the automatic spending cuts that kick in march 1st. and, it is tomorrow for our sunday group. bill kristol of the weekly standard. liz marlantes from the christian science monitor. republican congressman tom cotton of arkansas and fox news political analyst juan williams. we have heard from john mccain and congressman pelosi, in the first half, about how they think that the sequestration should be resolved. bill, a number of congressional republicans say if there is no compromise and one of the big issues will be the democratic demand for more taxes that we should live with the $85 million in automatic spending cuts that kick in march 1st. you disagree with that? >> i think the sequester is terrible public policy and, as was said on friday, having the complicated argument for why but, republicans should tactically and politically

embrace the sequester and it gives leverage over the president but it is too dangerous and would be too much damage to our national defense and the president should put forward a serious plan to deal with it and the republicans also, should and they have had legislation in the house last year and should pass out this year and put the burden on the president and democrats and say, who would you do about the sequester and you can say, the president's proposal, we wash our hand of it and let the national defenses be gutted. >> chris: liz, it is interesting, with the fiscal cliff at the start of the year the president had all the leverage, because if congress did nothing, everyone got a tax increase, the rich and the middle class, do republicans have the leverage now, because if they do nothing, congress does nothing, the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts kick in? >> that is what they are saying. i'm not entirely sure that that is true, in the sense that i think that republicans still

risk being blamed, more, iffy goes through and, things go badly, you know, if the economy takes a big hit because of it. based on all of the polling and the way the argument has been shaped, because there is a disadvantage with messaging, obama has been driving the argument and i think the republican party would probably take the big ger hit and he is trying hard and trying hard to pin it on the president but now the way the politics of this is, they may have leverage in the sense they have an opportunity to get spending cuts but may take a serious political hit because of it if they go through with it. >> chris: i want you to react to that, and as you saw in the clip from president's weekend address, once again the president is trying to make republicans pay the price politically. he's, basically saying, these cuts are going to affect the middle class in education and law en for the and food inspectors. and once again you guys want to protect your wealthy friends from any tax increase. >> chris, the bigger risk is the

way it will impact the department of develops, cutting 10% of the department of defense's budget this year and that is after four years where the department of defense has been the one agency in the federal government that has not had hundred of billions of dollars stuffed into its budget. look at domestic spending the last four years that exploded under the stimulus and annual resolution, funding the government, there is a lot more fat cut there and as bill said, republicans proposed a responsible alternative to the sequester which is what the president proposed in 2011, which is chip the cuts away from the department of defense and into domestic spending to ensure, for example we have two aircraft carriers in the persian gulf which we stopped because of the sequester. >> chris: let me ask you what i asked senator mccain, you heard nancy pelosi and the president saying if you kill the sequester you have to have tax increases, not the raise in rates but closing loopholes and, deduction. are you willing to go along with that?

>> obviously i disagree with nancy pelosi's call for more tax increases as well as barack obama. we just increased tax over $600 billion last month and we can't copy doing that every three months because barack obama wants more welfare spending. >> chris: juan? >> i'm a little befuddled. you say there are the many cuts on defense now and you want to protect defense from additional cuts and in fact defense is going to suffer like 8% of the cuts, versus 4% -- >> 13%, because it kicks in, in march rather than last fall. >> but, jafrl, -- 7.9, and, nondefense and domestic spending and, the republicans have to take a responsible posture, okay, even -- you think back to mitt romney, who said, we can do way with the loopholes and, nancy pelosi talking about benefits and subsidy for this oil and gas, and unnecessary farm subsidy. there is an overwhelming con

sense on capitol hill a lot of it can be done away with and why not work with the president to avoid sequestration you say would be draconian. >> just cancel the defense cuts. you can't -- what is so funny? >> you guys -- make the democrats -- >> no, it is not a matter of politics. it will gut our defense, if you are a responsible president. you don't have to save $45 billion, this year, that is 4% of the deficit. we'll endanger our national defenses and short change our servicemen and women, overseas, for the sake of cutting 4% from the deficit. >> it is totally irresponsible. >> and bill is right you can't have massive tax reform in 60 days. it took ronald reagan and tip o'neill and the bipartisan bill, 1986, 20 months to do it but, there is pork, nascar owners and, energy producers and... >> more than offset the defense cuts that would be devastating. >> let's make a deal and, they want the president to bail out

republicans -- >> i want -- >> no, enough. >> the president -- >> he's commander in chief. >> maybe you are not aware of that. >> he want a deal and says let's pass a temporary deal to avoid sequestration and republicans say we have to protect the rich and oil companies and gas companies and can't do it. >> chris: i'm going to change here, we are running out of time and congressman cotton i want to ask you about an interesting decision the congressional republican leaders made. they decide who will give the official republican response and florida senator marco rubio will give the official response to the president's speech on tuesday, does that make him the new face of the republican party on capitol hill. >> he has been an emerging leader on capitol hill for republicans, across the country for two years now. he's a generation of new leaders, not just marco but paul ryan and scott walker and so forth, who are emerging and i think will be this leader of our

party going forward and, marco in particular is a great and passionate advocate for conservative idea, limit government, strong national defense and individual liberty. >> chris: let me ask you and we have to wrap the segment up, as someone who want him to run last year, how big a deal is it in terms of his emergence at the top of the republican pack. >> i don't know if he is right at the top but he's certainly a leader, as tom says and he'll do a good job on tuesday night in the response, and, we'll have the rubio-cotton ticket in 2016. >> chris: a rubio-ryan button, and when this guy talks, we listen! we have to take a break, when we come back members of congress demand new checks on the president's power to launch drone strikes. ♪ the world needs more energy. where's it going to come from? ♪ that's why right here, in australia, chevron is building one of the biggest natural gas projects in the world. enough power for a city the size of singapore for 50 years.

what's it going to do to the planet? natural gas is the cleanest conventional fuel there is. we've got to be smart about this. it's a smart way to go. ♪

>> our power player of the week. he spends 60 to 90 minutes at th end of each day, logging each presidential activity. >> unofficial? yes, i guess it's unofficial. >> chris: stupid, we'll be right back.

. >> it was a limit, covert program and now everybody knows about it, and, i think we need

to see that this program is really run according to the american constitution. >> chris: senator dianne feinstein suggesting creation of a secret drone court where the president would have to go to get approval before putting terror suspects on his kill list and we're back now with the panel. congressman cotton for people who don't know you, you are an interesting figure. you went to harvard, you went to harvard law school, and then you spent fiv yea on active duty, on the front lines, in iraq and afghanistan and you have a lot of credibility on the issue on both side of the equation. how do you feel about the idea? before the president could target someone for assassination, especially an american citizen, he'd have to go get approval from a judge? >> we don't need federal judges involved insensitive and your sent national security matters and it would be unconstitutional infringement on the president's rights to keep america safe.

so, if you take up arms against america and fight in the a terrorist training camp on the front lines, pakistan or afghanistan or yemen you shouldn't be surprised if america reaches out and exacts justice against you. >> chris: liz, part of the debate has to do with what some people are calling alleged hypocrisy on the part of the white house, they say senator obama blasted george w. bush for water boarding and, for a lack of transparency. about the legal documents that authorize him to do it and yet the fact is president obama had to be dragged into releasing the legal authorization for his decision to kill people. >> i think there are two kind of schools of thought in terms of the hypocrisy argument. one is obama, himself, when he became president, you know, you see -- you get different briefings and see a different side of the story than when you were a candidate and sometimes it changes your mind and you

realize some of the policies might be necessary but the larger point, republicans claimed hypocrisy againdemocrat week on this and if it were the push administration, there would be a louder cry about it but polling shows the majority of democrats are okay with the program. there is the left and then there is where, you know, the majority of democratic voters are and i think most voters, most obama voters, out there, are thinking, well, if this is the kind of program that can avoid another iraq, great. you know? i think that is fine. and, that, also, i think, gives cover to the administration's positioning on this. >> chris: bill, we also got fascinating revelation from that senate hearing with defense secretary panetta, this week and we talked about what he revealed about syria but he said that on the night of the benghazi attacks, september 11th, of this last year, that he and general dempsey spoke to the president once early on, and then never

again. let's take a look. >> did the president show any curiousty about how it is going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? did he ever make the phone call? >> there is no question in my mind the president of the united states was concerned about american lives. >> with all due respect, i don't know if that is a credible statement if he neve called and asked you, are we helping these people. >> >> chris: given -- it was a series of attacks but the overall action went on over course of 7 hours, in benghazi the night of september 11th. what do you make of that? >> it is genuinely shocking, 5:30 that night, the president -- he briefed the the what was happening and the american ambassador was missing and there could well be sustained and ongoing attacks and he never spoke to the secretary of state or the joint chiefs of staff

and, secretary panetta said he never spoke to the white house later this night, not speaking to the national security advisor and, conveyed a message to or from the president and the president spent an hour on the phone with the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu because of the flap over the democratic convention and he wanted to show he was in touch with israel and they had a readout of the call, the national security council spokesperson did and he's talking to the israeli prime minister and is not talking to panetta and, it is really, i think a dereliction of duty on the part of president and his senior staff and they should be asked about it and tom donelon and the national security advisor and the white house chief of staff -- did they talk to the secretary of defense or say do what you can and checked out for the evening and next morning the president goes off to las vegas for a fund-raiser? >> it is not just shocking, it is out rangrageous as well and

his lack of preparation to be the commander of chief and mentioned i was in the early, at fort benning you learn the 8 troop leading procedures an step 8 is not issue the order, step 7 is issue the order and step 8, the most important step is supervise and he said in september i should have directed to take whatever steps are necessary to make sure our troops and our assets... and he never said, is my direction being executed and this is a complete failure of -- >> what about the argument -- >> and i don't know, and bill raises a legitimate question, maybe he was doing it through his national security advisor. >> what general dempsey and secretary panetta said, indicates there was no further contact from white house and the president showed no curiosity and had you a conversation with prime minister netanyahu that was in the middle of political season when he was receiving criticism for not being engaged with this prime minister and, probably preparing to file to las vegas for a fundraiser, when

i was in afghanistan we had troops in contact and i was next to the radio monitoring that and when the president has troops in contact in an embassy he knows is insecure it has to be the first priority. >> chris: juan? >> well, i mean, i'm just listening to this one side of the conversation. it is not wrong but it is not complete. what is complete is secretary panetta said this week, these were two attacks that tools at the start and end of a 7--hour period. not one continuous attacks and the military was not positioned to respond and to help, because they had no information. they did not have sufficient intelligence about a forth coming attack. this is what the secretary said. so in that circumstance you have an attack, the president said, i want my people protected, take all necessary steps to protect americans at risk and, put his people in place, to do that job. his people were doing that job. i don't know why the president would suddenly have to not only circumvent and supersede the authority of everybody in the line of order here, so i guess you are picking on the president. it doesn't seem real to me.

>> but, winston churchill said the essence of civilian leadership in the military is always right to probe and the president has shown his willingness to do that, when the generals proposed 40,000 troops to go to afghanistan, the president pressed and pressed and reduced it to 32 thousand, i think without good reason and if they said that night we have a six hour rule and can't get assets there the president could have probed and said, we can't? we don't have ships off the shore... >> i guess that indicates you don't have much trust in secretary panetta and secretary clinton and i guess the president, doesn't share that point of view and thinks these are good people who care about american assets and american lives and especially the life of an ambassador. i mean, like syria, we are discussing here, in the syrian situation the president followed up, and did do diligence and, he said there is a question do the arms fall into the -- >> i have to stop for a good reason, which we'll see in a second and i want to thank you and see you all next week.

i have to make a bittersweet announcement that i have been dreading. marty ryan, our executive producer and leader, is retiring today. he is one of this originals here, he put tony snow and fox news sunday on the air almost 17 years ago. even before there was a fox news channel. over the years, he was in charge as we interviewed four presidents. he was in charge during our political coverage and big special events. and we couldn't keep him away when he interviewed his favorite quarterback. >> chris: boy isn't that the truth. in case you wonder, when we go to break late in the show, go ahead, show the picture, that is marty on the back row, wave, marty, there he is. he's the guy with the silver hair and i think i gave him some of those! and, yes, he is in charge. i will miss him dearly and so will this program. but, marty, no one ever deserved to put his feet up and relax more than you do. up next, our power player of this week.

>> chris: whenever a president does something like hold a press conference, or head to camp david or even go for a round of golf, there is someone in the white house keeping count of exactly how many times he has done it. but it isn't some white house official. no, it is our power player of the week. ♪ >> the numbers really help tell the story, in an important way. >> i'm going to call on mark,

where is mark? there you are. >> mr. president... >> chris: the number he is talking about are meticulous records he keeps on almost everything the president does. think we're exaggerating? >> i keep logs on the number of speeches. that he used a teleprompter, how long did the speech last? where did he go, how many times has he been there before should number of flights on air force one, number of flights on marine one. >> chris: we squeezed into his cramped booth in the press room and he showed us his file on each of the 114 rounds of golf president obama played. >> i keep log, what date did he play, how long did he play it? who was in the foursome, what time did the game begin and end. >> chris: you love this, don't you. >> at least now i have and as expect of the presidency that pretty much i own. and, i like that. >> chris: and he owns it.

his colleagues in the press corps come to him to final out how many news conferences the president held and when national security advisor tom donelon was briefing reporters on the economic summit last year, he deferred to him. >> always risky to do this with the presidential historian in the room but i'll do it anyway... at the risk of being corrected immediately. >> chris: how do you feel, being the unofficial records keeper of the presidency? >> well, it certainly wasn't what i set out to do. but unofficially, yes, i guess i'm unofficial. >> chris: he started recordkeeping a couple of years into the clinton administration. when he noticed the president kept going to california. >> i tried going back to reconstruct how many trips he had made to california and it took all day. >> chris: so, he start keeping his own records. he spends 60 to 90 minutes at the end of each day logging every presidential activity. the presidents have noticed.

when he reported george w. bush pent more than a year at his texas ranch, it came up at a white house christmas party. >> i come up to shake his hand and he says to laura, this is the guy who tells everybody how often we go to the ranch. and, if we get there at 10:00 p.m. he count it as a full day and i corrected him. i don't count it as a full day. >> chris: that is a tad obsessive? okay. i'm obsessed with doing my job well and doing it thoroughly. you got me! >> chris: he has been covering presidents since gerald ford. at age 60, he has never married. but, he has no regrets. is this job, this group, is this your family? >> sure. it is my life. i'm able to come to this place exactly on my terms. and i find that very satisfying. >> chris: he isn't sure what he'll do with his files once he leaves the white house but would like to f